Search

Search Results

• 1. [Article] Tidal-Fluvial and Estuarine Processes in the Lower Columbia River: II. Water Level Models, Floodplain Wetland Inundation, and System Zones

  Spatially varying water-level regimes are a factor controlling estuarine and tidal-fluvial wetland vegetation patterns. As described in Part I, water levels in the Lower Columbia River and estuary (LCRE) ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Tidal-Fluvial and Estuarine Processes in the Lower Columbia River: II. Water Level Models, Floodplain Wetland Inundation, and System Zones Author: Jay, David A, Borde, Amy B., Diefenderfer, Heida Year: 2016 Spatially varying water-level regimes are a factor controlling estuarine and tidal-fluvial wetland vegetation patterns. As described in Part I, water levels in the Lower Columbia River and estuary (LCRE) are influenced by tides, river flow, hydropower operations, and coastal processes. In Part II, regression models based on tidal theory are used to quantify the role of these processes in determining water levels in the mainstem river and floodplain wetlands, and to provide 21-year inundation hindcasts. Analyses are conducted at 19 LCRE mainstem channel stations and 23 tidally exposed floodplain wetland stations. Sum exceedance values (SEVs) are used to compare wetland hydrologic regimes at different locations on the river floodplain. A new predictive tool is introduced and validated, the potential SEV (pSEV), which can reduce the need for extensive new data collection in wetland restoration planning. Models of water levels and inundation frequency distinguish four zones encompassing eight reaches. The system zones are the wave- and current-dominated Entrance to river kilometer (rkm) 5; the Estuary (rkm-5 to 87), comprised of a lower reach with salinity, the energy minimum (where the turbidity maximum normally occurs), and an upper estuary reach without salinity; the Tidal River (rkm-87 to 229), with lower, middle, and upper reaches in which river flow becomes increasingly dominant over tides in determining water levels; and the steep and weakly tidal Cascade (rkm-229 to 234) immediately downstream from Bonneville Dam. The same zonation is seen in the water levels of floodplain stations, with considerable modification of tidal properties. The system zones and reaches defined here reflect geological features and their boundaries are congruent with five wetland vegetation zones. Title: Tidal-Fluvial and Estuarine Processes in the Lower Columbia River: II. Water Level Models, Floodplain Wetland Inundation, and System Zones Author: Jay, David A, Borde, Amy B., Diefenderfer, Heida Year: 2016 Spatially varying water-level regimes are a factor controlling estuarine and tidal-fluvial wetland vegetation patterns. As described in Part I, water levels in the Lower Columbia River and estuary (LCRE) are influenced by tides, river flow, hydropower operations, and coastal processes. In Part II, regression models based on tidal theory are used to quantify the role of these processes in determining water levels in the mainstem river and floodplain wetlands, and to provide 21-year inundation hindcasts. Analyses are conducted at 19 LCRE mainstem channel stations and 23 tidally exposed floodplain wetland stations. Sum exceedance values (SEVs) are used to compare wetland hydrologic regimes at different locations on the river floodplain. A new predictive tool is introduced and validated, the potential SEV (pSEV), which can reduce the need for extensive new data collection in wetland restoration planning. Models of water levels and inundation frequency distinguish four zones encompassing eight reaches. The system zones are the wave- and current-dominated Entrance to river kilometer (rkm) 5; the Estuary (rkm-5 to 87), comprised of a lower reach with salinity, the energy minimum (where the turbidity maximum normally occurs), and an upper estuary reach without salinity; the Tidal River (rkm-87 to 229), with lower, middle, and upper reaches in which river flow becomes increasingly dominant over tides in determining water levels; and the steep and weakly tidal Cascade (rkm-229 to 234) immediately downstream from Bonneville Dam. The same zonation is seen in the water levels of floodplain stations, with considerable modification of tidal properties. The system zones and reaches defined here reflect geological features and their boundaries are congruent with five wetland vegetation zones. Close

• 2. [Article] Evaluating Global Sensitivity Analysis Methods for Hydrologic Modeling over the Columbia River Basin

  Global Sensitivity Analysis (GSA) approach helps to identify the effectiveness of model parameters or inputs and thus provides essential information about the model performance. The effects of 14 parameters ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Evaluating Global Sensitivity Analysis Methods for Hydrologic Modeling over the Columbia River Basin Author: Hameed, Maysoun Ayad Year: 2015 Global Sensitivity Analysis (GSA) approach helps to identify the effectiveness of model parameters or inputs and thus provides essential information about the model performance. The effects of 14 parameters and one input (forcing data) of the Sacramento Soil Moisture Accounting (SAC-SMA) model are analyzed by using two GSA methods: Sobol' and Fourier Amplitude Sensitivity Test (FAST). The simulations are carried out over five sub-basins within the Columbia River Basin (CRB) for three different periods: one-year, four-year, and seven-year. The main parameter sensitivities (first-order) and the interactions sensitivities (second-order) are evaluated in this study. Our results show that some hydrological processes are highly affected by the simulation length. In other words, some parameters reveal importance during the short period simulation (e.g. one-year) while other parameters are effective in the long period simulations (e.g. four-year and seven-year). Moreover, the reliability of the sensitivity analysis results is compared based on 1) the agreement between the two sensitivity analysis methods (Sobol' and FAST) in terms of highlighting the same parameters or input as the most influential parameters or input and 2) how the methods are cohered in ranking these sensitive parameters under the same conditions (sub-basins and simulation length). The results show that the coherence between the Sobol' and FAST sensitivity analysis methods. Additionally, it is found that FAST method is sufficient to evaluate the main effects of the model parameters and inputs. This study confirms that the Sobol' and FAST methods are reliable GSA methods that can be applied in different scientific applications. Finally, as a future work, we suggest to study the uncertainty associated with the sensitivity analysis approach regarding the reliability of evaluating different sensitivity analysis methods. Title: Evaluating Global Sensitivity Analysis Methods for Hydrologic Modeling over the Columbia River Basin Author: Hameed, Maysoun Ayad Year: 2015 Global Sensitivity Analysis (GSA) approach helps to identify the effectiveness of model parameters or inputs and thus provides essential information about the model performance. The effects of 14 parameters and one input (forcing data) of the Sacramento Soil Moisture Accounting (SAC-SMA) model are analyzed by using two GSA methods: Sobol' and Fourier Amplitude Sensitivity Test (FAST). The simulations are carried out over five sub-basins within the Columbia River Basin (CRB) for three different periods: one-year, four-year, and seven-year. The main parameter sensitivities (first-order) and the interactions sensitivities (second-order) are evaluated in this study. Our results show that some hydrological processes are highly affected by the simulation length. In other words, some parameters reveal importance during the short period simulation (e.g. one-year) while other parameters are effective in the long period simulations (e.g. four-year and seven-year). Moreover, the reliability of the sensitivity analysis results is compared based on 1) the agreement between the two sensitivity analysis methods (Sobol' and FAST) in terms of highlighting the same parameters or input as the most influential parameters or input and 2) how the methods are cohered in ranking these sensitive parameters under the same conditions (sub-basins and simulation length). The results show that the coherence between the Sobol' and FAST sensitivity analysis methods. Additionally, it is found that FAST method is sufficient to evaluate the main effects of the model parameters and inputs. This study confirms that the Sobol' and FAST methods are reliable GSA methods that can be applied in different scientific applications. Finally, as a future work, we suggest to study the uncertainty associated with the sensitivity analysis approach regarding the reliability of evaluating different sensitivity analysis methods. Close